Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV30039, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30039    Hearing Date: November 14, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 14, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Arina Builders

Responding Party: Defendant Robert Haro

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP 2030.300(a)(3).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form interrogatories (“FIs”) and special interrogatories (“SIs”).  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

Plaintiff moves to compel further response to RPDs, set one, and FIs, set one, from Defendant Haro. Defendant served supplemental responses to RPDs on September 14, 2022 and FIs on September 12, 2022.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s responses are unverified, evasive, and incomplete. In response to the RPDs, Defendant refers generally to “all documents produced in response to related case of JE Group v. CSM Sycamore, Case No. 20STCV48660.” This is not a code-compliant response. Defendant must identify the documents that are responsive to each request. Further response is required.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs is GRANTED. Plaintiff requests $3,024.00 in attorney’s fees and costs in the motion. Plaintiff’s counsel, however, declares that only $511.00 in fees have been incurred to bring this motion. (Decl. Samofalova ¶ 11.) Plaintiff has provided insufficient notice of sanctions. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

In response to FIs, Defendant appears to have provided as much information as Defendant has in his possession. Plaintiff asserts that further responses are necessary because Defendant does not respond to each subpart of certain questions, such as the address of every school Defendant has attended. The Court will not order further responses because Defendant has not answered every subpart to inconsequential interrogatories. Defendant has provided substantive responses to each interrogatory. Further response is not necessary.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to FIs is DENIED.